Off-topic Talk Where overpaid, underworked S2000 owners waste the worst part of their days before the drive home. This forum is for general chit chat and discussions not covered by the other off-topic forums.

US Supreme Court rules on Boat Prop Protectors.?

Thread Tools
 
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 03:32 PM
  #1  
Scot's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,288
Likes: 39
From: Nashville
Default US Supreme Court rules on Boat Prop Protectors.?

I was listening to NPR on the way home and the Supreme court ruled that they would allow a lawsuit against Mercury Marine because some dumbshit got caught in the spinning blade and got killed.

Sorry for the lady who got killed, but..... it is a spinning blade!!!! Apparently the prop should have had a protective cage according to the lawsuit.

I cut myself on paper the other day.....lawsuit against paper manufacturers!!!!! I AM GOING TO BE RICH!

Scot
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 05:59 PM
  #2  
WestSideBilly's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 93,305
Likes: 820
From: Nowhere
Default

This country is hellbent on entitlements. "I got hurt because I'm stupid, I'm entitled to millions of dollars"

If this is the case I think it is, the plaintiffs have already been defeated in Cook County, the State of Illinois, and the Illinois Supreme Court... You'd think they'd figure it out by now
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 06:21 PM
  #3  
CG's Avatar
CG
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,029
Likes: 2
From: In the heart of the USSA!
Default

Mercury Marine should sue for prop damage.

I got hit by a jet boat after falling off my skis a few years ago. I couldn't dive to get out of the way because of the life vest. I was SO happy it was a jet boat instead of a prop boat but I wouldn't have sued. It was an accident, stupid, but still an accident.
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 07:35 PM
  #4  
mikes2k's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 88,444
Likes: 21
From: Pt. A to Pt. B via VTEC!!
Default

The Safety NAZIS strike again!
GRRRRRRRRR

Pretty soon we will need warning labels for the warning labels!
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 08:34 PM
  #5  
I ride shotgun's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Philadelphia
Default

I would need to hear from both sides before I was able to pass judgment.
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 08:44 PM
  #6  
mikes2k's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 88,444
Likes: 21
From: Pt. A to Pt. B via VTEC!!
Default

U want to hear from the boat prop?

Good idea!
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2002 | 09:07 PM
  #7  
magician's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Default

All the Supreme Court said was that despite the fact that there are federal safety regulations in place which afford Mercury pretection in federal court, the plaintiff is still allowed to sue in state court. It made no judgement on the merits of this case, only on whether a federal protection preempts states' rights.

Get a grip.
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Dec 4, 2002 | 11:51 AM
  #8  
Scot's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,288
Likes: 39
From: Nashville
Default

Yes, but after all of the normal channels said no this is stupid , the US Supreme court said.... go ahead and have a trial. (what a waste of $) A group of prozak Jury members will give this guy millions due to his wife's inability to avoid the big spinning blade....

Why should this guy have another shot at a lawsuit at the state level. He doesn't see that it was his wife's fault?

I think I'll throw one of the pets up into the ceiling fan (they should have a protective cage ya know) tonight, then sue everyone!

Scot


[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]All the Supreme Court said was that despite the fact that there are federal safety regulations in place which afford Mercury pretection in federal court, the plaintiff is still allowed to sue in state court.
Reply
Old Dec 4, 2002 | 03:05 PM
  #9  
magician's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Default

Originally posted by Scot
Yes, but after all of the normal channels said no this is stupid , the US Supreme court said.... go ahead and have a trial.
A. Do you not consider the US Supreme Court to be a "normal channel"? Most would disagree.

B. The lower courts didn't say that anything was stupid, they said that the federal protection extended to state courts. The Supreme Court disagreed. Once again, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of this case, nor did the lower courts. They merely ruled on the extent of the protection of a federal law vis-a-vis states' rights.
Reply
Old Dec 4, 2002 | 03:31 PM
  #10  
Scot's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,288
Likes: 39
From: Nashville
Default

I thought The Supreme Court was only supposed to hear about items of merit. In my opinion, this should not have ever gotten to the Supreme Court, let alone have them agree on it.

This will open the flood gates to any Yahoo who has been cut by a prop blade. I could understand if the blade came off and killed someone but that is not the case. Now the local lawyers can run commercials about Workers Comp, Auto Accidents and..... Prop Blades.

So, now it is up the the Jury(s)...... which we see awarding millions of $$$ to idiots who spill coffee on themselves.

Scot


[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]

A.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 PM.